Shri. Santharao.K Vs the Commissioner of Customs

¶1

W.P. No.5223 of 2025 etc. batch

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P. Nos.5223, 5231, 5228, 5234, 5236, 5242, 5250, 5244, 5246, 5248, 5330, 5333, 5335, 5337, 5339, 5334, 5342, 5344, 5340, 5338, 5351, 5352, 5354, 5357, 5359, 5368, 5373, 5375, 5371 and 5372 of 2025

¶7

In W.P. No.5223 of 2025 Santharao K. ... Petitioner vs

¶8

1. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VIII Commissionerate, Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶9

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Customs Broker Section, General Commissionerate, Customs House, Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Mandamus directing the 1 st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.03.2024 to issue 'G Card' in terms of Regulation 13(5) of CBLR, 2018 without insisting on passing oral examination.

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

1/6

¶13

W.P. No.5223 of 2025 etc. batch

¶14

For Petitioner in all W.P.s	: Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan
For Respondents in all W.P.s	: Ms. Revathi Manivannan SSC

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

Heard Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶17

in all Writ Petitions. Ms.Revathi Manivannan, learned Senior Standing Counsel a ccepts notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both the parties, these writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶18

2.These writ petitions have been filed seeking for a limited relief.

¶19

All the petitioners claim that even though they have complied

¶20

with Regulation 13(5) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, they have not been issued “G” Cards by the respondents. The petitioners are all employees of Customs Brokers. They claim that they have passed the written examination conducted by the respondents and therefore they are entitled for the issuance of “G” cards in terms of the regulations. However, according to the petitioners, the respondents are insisting for

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

2/6

¶23

W.P. No.5223 of 2025 etc. batch

¶24

the petitioners to pass the oral examinations. According to them, the

¶25

regulations does not provide for conduct of oral examination. The petitioners have all failed in the oral examinations. But however according to the petitioners, there is no requirement for them to pass the oral examinations. According to the petitioners since they have passed the written examination, they are entitled for the issuance of “G” cards. The petitioners have all given representations to the respondents requesting the respondents to issue “G” cards in their favour. Since the representations were not considered, they have filed these writ petitions.

¶26

A learned Single Judge of this Court had an occasion to deal

¶27

with similar writ petitions and by his order dated 23.08.2023 had directed the respondents to consider the representations of the similarly placed persons as that of these petitioners and in his order, a prima facie observation has been made that the petitioners are entitled for issuance of Form-G in terms of Regulation 13(5) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The learned Single Judge had also considered various decisions rendered by this Court and only thereafter has directed the respondents to consider the representations of those petitioners

¶28

seeking for the issuance of “G” cards in their favour. The petitioners in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶29

W.P. No.5223 of 2025 etc. batch

¶30

these writ petitions seek for a similar relief and seek for similar directions to be issued by this Court.

¶31

Ms.Revathi Manivannan, learned Senior Standing Counsel

¶32

accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶33

6. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the

¶34

petitioner's representations seeking for issuance of “G” cards in their respective favour is considered on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the order, dated 23.08.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court involving a similar matter in W.P. Nos.24797 of 2023 etc., batch in the case of K. Madhavan vs. The Commissioner of Customs and another.

¶35

7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing

¶36

the 1 st respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the order, dated 23.08.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. No.24797 of 2024 etc., batch in the case K. Madhavan vs. The

¶37

Commissioner of Customs and another on the respective petitioner's

¶38

representations seeking for issuance of “G” cards, within a period of 4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P. No.5223 of 2025 etc. batch

¶41

eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court is

¶42

not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representations.

¶43

18.02.2025

¶44

Index: Yes/ No Speaking order / Non speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No vsi2

¶45

1. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VIII Commissionerate, Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶46

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Customs Broker Section, General Commissionerate, Customs House, Chennai – 600 001.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

5/6

¶49

W.P. No.5223 of 2025 etc. batch

¶50

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶51

vsi2

¶52

W.P. Nos.5223, 5231, 5228, 5234, 5236, 5242, 5250, 5244, 5246, 5248, 5330, 5333, 5335, 5337, 5339, 5334, 5342, 5344, 5340, 5338, 5351, 5352, 5354, 5357, 5359, 5368, 5373, 5375, 5371 and 5372 of 2025

¶53

18.02.2025

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

6/6

Shri. Santharao.K v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Santharao.K v. the Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs G Devaraj

Annai Infra Developers Limited Vs Engineering Projects India Limited and another

Mr.D.Muthu Kumar, S/o. Durairaj Vs M/s Sai Sravanthi Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Director

Tata Capital Ltd. Vs Balasubramanian K

M/s Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs Vijayapandian S (Borrower)

Hdb Financial Services Limited Vs M/s. Shiva Shakti Mining